My first reaction was "he really didn't say that," as if the reason we hold or reject truth claims was based upon what Rome or the EOs say ("Catholicism" is too broad), rather than Scriptural substantiation. But for clarification, let me ask you also, what is the basis for your assurance of truth?
For it seems that the RC argument is that an assuredly (if conditionally) infallible magisterium is essential for valid assurance of Truth and to fulfill promises of Divine presence, providence of Truth, and preservation of faith. (Jn. 14:16; 16:13; Mt. 16:18)
And that being the historical instruments and stewards of Divine revelation (oral and written) means that Rome is that assuredly infallible magisterium. Thus those who dissent from the latter are in rebellion to God.
Does this fairly represent what you hold to or in what way does it differ??
You know Daniel, I’ve seen you post this same question over and over. I have to admit I have absolutely no idea what you’re saying. Maybe it is just me but I think that this question you pose to everyone is too full of clauses and presuppositions to be answered adequately. Quite frankly I don’t trust it. Perhaps there is too much deconstruction that must take place in order to answer it.
It could be me. As for my assurance of Truth well isn’t that obvious. It’s the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church which is free from error by the power of the Holy Spirit as promised by our Lord Jesus Christ.
You have to make a leap of faith at some point.